PDA

View Full Version : Sox Article On Sportsline


Madvora
12-17-2007, 06:42 PM
The lead story on sportsline's MLB page.

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10529521

Toddling toward trouble
An inscrutable GM and a wacky manager. An insane contract for a setup guy. A head-scratching trade. All reasons Larry Dobrow has only scant hope the White Sox can escape mediocrity in 2008.

EDIT - looks like it a series of articles on multiple teams

JermaineDye05
12-17-2007, 07:14 PM
The lead story on sportsline's MLB page.

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10529521



EDIT - looks like it a series of articles on multiple teams

what's the head scratching trade? Each one Kenny made made sense to me. Insane contract? It seems like a pretty good contract considering what Gagne and Cordero are getting.

CashMan
12-17-2007, 07:16 PM
what's the head scratching trade? Each one Kenny made made sense to me. Insane contract? It seems like a pretty good contract considering what Gagne and Cordero are getting.

Those 2 players are closers not setup men.

btrain929
12-17-2007, 07:23 PM
Those 2 players are closers not setup men.

OK, how bout JC Romero? Argue that one....

santo=dorf
12-17-2007, 07:34 PM
OK, how bout JC Romero? Argue that one....
Philly is stupid, and Romero's contract is still not as big.

White Sox sign Juan Uribe then trade their best trading chip for another shortstop.
Orioles trade Miguel Tejada for 5 players.

JermaineDye05
12-17-2007, 07:38 PM
Those 2 players are closers not setup men.

so Gagne's 3.81 ERA and 16 saves in 20 opportunities including his terrible job done in Boston is worth about 6 million more? And so is Cordero 6.55 ERA on the road??

Max Power
12-17-2007, 07:44 PM
Uribe was re-signed before the Cabrera, not after as the article states. Other than that small factual inaccuracy I think the column is pretty reasonable. Unfortunately.

Tragg
12-17-2007, 07:53 PM
The years is the problem in the Linebrink deal. Williams chases veteran middle relievers a lot. These middle relievers are notoriously untrustworthy. Yet, it's been 6 or 7 in the last year. That said, it's only $5 mill a year - won't kill us even if he flops. These guys really are exaggerating the effects of it.

Signing Uribe for $4.5 million says that Uribe is a good player (at least in Williams' eyes). So using the top trading piece to ugrade a position where you already have a good player is open to critique. Last July, he tried to dump and failed; then he extended players. He seems to be reacting, instead of doing what he wants to do.

I think extending Guillen to 2012 says that the Sox will not rebuild between now and 2011.

SoxNation05
12-17-2007, 07:56 PM
Sox still would have been better off trading Garland for Michael Young or a package even better than what the Astros gave the O's.

Trav
12-17-2007, 07:59 PM
so Gagne's 3.81 ERA and 16 saves in 20 opportunities including his terrible job done in Boston is worth about 6 million more? And so is Cordero 6.55 ERA on the road??

Just because two desperate teams overpay does not mean the Sox should. That said, they kind of had to get a new guy in the bullpen to have any stability outside of Jenks. So far, it's been a disappointing off season and I'm sure confusing to many who are not privy to KW's actual master plan. It isn't like we don't know that he has had players fall through that he was counting on though. The off season isn't over and I'm sticking to my decision to wait until opening day to judge how good of an off season he has had.

DSpivack
12-17-2007, 08:01 PM
Well, he sounds pretty pessimistic like many posters here, but not overly so. He's no Dayn Perry.

Danryan
12-17-2007, 08:01 PM
Can someone explain the Jim "McCheese" Thome reference? That went over my head.

Tragg
12-17-2007, 08:06 PM
Sox still would have been better off trading Garland for Michael Young or a package even better than what the Astros gave the O's.

Now is Tejada in a walk year? That seems to me to be a big difference.

Williams hasn't done very well ever, really, in trading veterans for prospects. Garcia brought a couple of pitchers, but that's pretty much it. A lot of vets were basically given away over the years. (Durham being the most notorious gift).

The next question is what sort of deal that he can cut on his excess, which is clearly Uribe and possibly Crede? Can he use it to fill a real need, or will he take scraps or players we don't need? When Williams was acquiring Thome, who had no place to play (excess) with the Phillies, he paid a top price in a starting ML CF (who just signed a 60 Mill contract) and 2 top pitching prospects. So, the fact that he is excess, shouldn't preclude a deal. (and if "Uribe has no value", if he has no value, why did we sign him for $4.5 million?).

SoxNation05
12-17-2007, 08:11 PM
Williams hasn't done very well ever, really, in trading veterans for prospects. Garcia brought a couple of pitchers, but that's pretty much it. A lot of vets were basically given away over the years. (Durham being the most notorious gift).


What trades are you referring to I am not having any come to mind.

itsnotrequired
12-17-2007, 08:28 PM
Williams hasn't done very well ever, really, in trading veterans for prospects. Garcia brought a couple of pitchers, but that's pretty much it. A lot of vets were basically given away over the years. (Durham being the most notorious gift).

Floyd hasn't done much so far but Gio looks very promising. He led the Southern League in Ks, third in WHIP and fourth in ERA last season.

Let's also not forget that it freed nearly $10 million off the payroll and Garcia had one win last year before having season-ending shoulder surgery. He isn't even on the Phillies any more.

So far, this trade looks like a huge plus for KW.

btrain929
12-17-2007, 08:52 PM
Philly is stupid, and Romero's contract is still not as big.

White Sox sign Juan Uribe then trade their best trading chip for another shortstop.
Orioles trade Miguel Tejada for 5 players.

Romero = 3 for 12
Linebrink = 4 for 19

Not too much of a difference as far as annual salary wise, just another year. Also, not to mention our bullpen was horrific, and Linebrink was the best non-closer on the market. I don't mind us overpaying or overcommitting if its not by too much and its addressing a huge need, which this is doing.

We signed Uribe to make us not look desperate. If we declined Uribe, ANA probably would have wanted Garland plus cash or a prospect or 2 knowing we weren't in a position to say no. We were going to get held up trying to acquire a SS if we didn't sign Uribe.

Outside of Jennings last year, when was the last time a SP, who was their best trading chip, traded in the final year of his contract and brought back a huge haul? We got a gold glove SS and a very solid #2 hitter AND cash. I think that's a great return. At least we know what were getting as supposed to a few prospects that might or might not pan out.

As for Tejada, he's NOT in the final year of his contract, is one of the best offensive SS in the game, and all 5 players aren't can't miss prospects. BAL collected a lot of bodies, but nothing promising. If you want 4 guys with the ceiling of Pedro Lopez, Heath Phillips, etc, fine.

champagne030
12-17-2007, 09:31 PM
Floyd hasn't done much so far but Gio looks very promising. He led the Southern League in Ks, third in WHIP and fourth in ERA last season.

Let's also not forget that it freed nearly $10 million off the payroll and Garcia had one win last year before having season-ending shoulder surgery. He isn't even on the Phillies any more.

So far, this trade looks like a huge plus for KW.

Depends on what Kenny turned down from other teams to obtain Gio and Floyd. Maybe the trade would have been significantly better.

Brian26
12-17-2007, 09:58 PM
Sox still would have been better off trading Garland for Michael Young or a package even better than what the Astros gave the O's.

How do you know Texas would give up Michael Young for Garland? I can't imagine the Astros would give up the same five guys for Garland that they traded for Tejada.

WhiteSox5187
12-17-2007, 09:58 PM
We'll see how the season plays out but I think it is no surprise that people are skeptical of KW's moves. It seemed like orginally in July of last year he was going to be letting go of all his vets (Buerhle, Dye, etc) then we re-sign those guys and it looks like we're going to go out and sign a bunch of guys to compete for next year and we lose out on just about ALL of the big FAs. So now Kenny is kind of stuck in between rebuilding and trying to compete and that's not a good place to be. But we'll see how the season plays out. If everyone contributes offensively like they can (and we get a leadoff guy) I think the offense will be a force to be reckoned with. The big question mark is what is the rotation going to do? There are three question marks there. Now if all three wind up having great years (or even solid years, if Jose, Gavin and Danks each win 10-12 games, I'd be content) Kenny looks like a genius. But if they have years like last year, we could be in a rough spot. We'll see...this is why the play the gmes, I can't wait!

Brian26
12-17-2007, 10:01 PM
Williams hasn't done very well ever, really, in trading veterans for prospects. Garcia brought a couple of pitchers, but that's pretty much it. A lot of vets were basically given away over the years. (Durham being the most notorious gift).

I'm not sure how much more Durham was going to bring back when he had publically stated he was going to test the free agent market, and the Sox were pretty much fed up with him at second base.

itsnotrequired
12-17-2007, 10:02 PM
Depends on what Kenny turned down from other teams to obtain Gio and Floyd. Maybe the trade would have been significantly better.

And maybe it would have been worse if said other teams decided to have Garcia take a physical...

DickAllen72
12-17-2007, 10:37 PM
White Sox sign Juan Uribe then trade their best trading chip for another shortstop.
Orioles trade Miguel Tejada for 5 players.
So the Astros gave up five players for one shortstop while KW was able to acquire a gold glove shortstop and a veteran backup for only one player and $4.5M

soxinem1
12-17-2007, 10:59 PM
Other than a few trivial points being mis-stated, this article is the total truth.

The GM will not trust rookies in key roles, and will take a veteran any day of the week.

The GM has nothing in the farm system to brag about. All this talk about Gio Gonzalez, but he has not pitched in MLB and some already have him penned as a 16-game winner as soon as he arrives, if ever, to Chicago.

The manager, like his boss, does not like rookies as regulars. Guillen doesn't even want to play them even when he is up ****s creek with other feasable veteran options. The strange thing is, that both of them were thrown in the line up as regulars as rookies themselves, so why they won't do the same is beyond me.

FarWestChicago
12-17-2007, 11:08 PM
The GM will not trust rookies in key roles, and will take a veteran any day of the week.

The GM has nothing in the farm system to brag about. All this talk about Gio Gonzalez, but he has not pitched in MLB and some already have him penned as a 16-game winner as soon as he arrives, if ever, to Chicago.

The manager, like his boss, does not like rookies as regulars. Guillen doesn't even want to play them even when he is up ****s creek with other feasable veteran options. The strange thing is, that both of them were thrown in the line up as regulars as rookies themselves, so why they won't do the same is beyond me.Why are you so obsessed with rookies? I'm just curious.

JNS
12-17-2007, 11:18 PM
Why are you so obsessed with rookies? I'm just curious.

He has a point. It isn't rookies, it's young players. KW seems to have very little confidence in his own picks - he's traded almost of the kids with any potential away, the most recent being the two who are now on the A's after being traded by the Dbacks.

Chris Young is another example.

And Ozzie played friggin ANDY GONZALES in September when he could have been giving time to various rooks and/or other kids.

It's becoming an issue.

PalehosePlanet
12-18-2007, 12:06 AM
Just because two desperate teams overpay does not mean the Sox should. That said, they kind of had to get a new guy in the bullpen to have any stability outside of Jenks. So far, it's been a disappointing off season and I'm sure confusing to many who are not privy to KW's actual master plan. It isn't like we don't know that he has had players fall through that he was counting on though. The off season isn't over and I'm sticking to my decision to wait until opening day to judge how good of an off season he has had.

In articles predicting where free agents would sign, Rotoworld had Linebrink going to the Yankees for 4/24 and Yahoo had him going to the Astros for 3/21. Therefore, at 4/19, what's to complain about? How is this a bad deal?

This is the market now for a top notch setup man, period.

Tragg
12-18-2007, 12:26 AM
Overall, the Sox are a better team than we were (probably not enough better; but better). And, there were no bad moves that will hamstring further improvement.

Trav
12-18-2007, 12:34 AM
In articles predicting where free agents would sign, Rotoworld had Linebrink going to the Yankees for 4/24 and Yahoo had him going to the Astros for 3/21. Therefore, at 4/19, what's to complain about? How is this a bad deal?

This is the market now for a top notch setup man, period.

Because four years is a long contract for a club that had a strict a nothing over three for SP up until MB signed his new one last year. And I'm not saying it's a bad deal, because KW needed a guy like him. I was just surprised at the length.

Nellie_Fox
12-18-2007, 12:42 AM
Williams hasn't done very well ever, really, in trading veterans for prospects. Garcia brought a couple of pitchers, but that's pretty much it. A lot of vets were basically given away over the years. (Durham being the most notorious gift).


What trades are you referring to I am not having any come to mind.If you want to quote another post to start your post (like I just did above) just click on the "quote" button at the bottom of that post. Copying and pasting it in another color will probably just confuse people.

mjmcend
12-18-2007, 01:32 AM
To paraphrase one of my own posts: Kenny needs to figure out what he wants to do. Are we trying to compete this year or build for the future? I submit that a team with our limited resources (both financial and the talent down on the farm) can't adequately do both at the same time.

While I agree, in principal, that overpaying in both dollars and, more importantly, years for these players (Rowand, Hunter, ect.) is not wise, the Sox are still in need of more parts to compete in 2008. This team as currently constructed will have a tough time next year according to many people, myself included. So if we are to go for broke in 2008, we should have been more willing to task on long-term financial risks for the sake of short term gains. Obviously we haven't done that this offseason. Andrew Jones would have been a good signing if winning now was the ultimate and only goal because we wouldn't have risked many years or tied up payroll well into the next decade. The Linebrick signing also fits here due to general unreliability of relief pitchers over the years (although he has been more consistent than most.) Linebrick for four years doesn't help us rebuild and by itself won't put us over the top. It maybe gets us 3-4 more wins which won't be enough to make us contenders in '08.

Conversely, if we are trying to build for the future we should not have resigned Dye or traded our best chip for a short term solution (O. Cabrera).

The rumored deal for M. Cabrera was exactly the kind of trade needed to pull of the fine line of building to win now and in the future. However, we didn't have the necessary talent resources to pull of that deal. I submit that resigning Mark and trading for Carlos Quentin also help this ideal cause. However, I don't believe that alone will be enough for either the near or long term.

I honestly have no idea where we go from here. The Sox are stuck between two competing trends and don't have the resources to pull both of them off, so they end up doing both insufficiently. Kenny has proved to be adept at fixing these problems in the past so all is not lost, but I do fear it will take a long time. I'm also not sure that Ozzie is the guy to rebuild under. He has a Dusty Baker-like aversion to young players (thankfully without the pitcher abusing).

Foulke You
12-18-2007, 02:00 AM
He has a point. It isn't rookies, it's young players. KW seems to have very little confidence in his own picks - he's traded almost of the kids with any potential away, the most recent being the two who are now on the A's after being traded by the Dbacks.

Chris Young is another example.

And Ozzie played friggin ANDY GONZALES in September when he could have been giving time to various rooks and/or other kids.

It's becoming an issue.
Chris Young was about #3 in the Sox minor league outfield depth chart at the time he was traded. (Anderson and Sweeney were both ranked higher by the organization) Plus, you make it sound like they just "gave up" on Young. He was traded in a package for Vazquez in our push to win back to back World Series titles!

As far as playing time, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Prospect Sox players have gotten their chance to shine at the big league level and failed or had marginal success at best. Brian Anderson flashed a slick glove but never showed he could hit for almost 4 months at the big league level in '06. Jerry Owens and Richar both got extended looks at the big league level in '07 and didn't exactly tear it up. Josh Fields got extended playing time in '07 as well and he has more than likely earned a starting job next year. You know why? Because he is good!

The problem hasn't been a lack of playing time for our youngsters or "Ozzie and Kenny giving up on youth", the problem has been getting quality players out of our system. I like the Carlos Quentin trade because KW recognized the lack of young talent in our system and plucked a top prospect away from another organization to rebuild with.

soxinem1
12-18-2007, 08:44 AM
Why are you so obsessed with rookies? I'm just curious.

Other than a team like NYY or BOS that has deep pockets, most successful teams build from within.

But even those teams have developed more from within that we have recently, so using that low draft pick crap is not valid. Look at some of the arms the Yankees have cranked out in the past few years, picking lower and LESS than the White Sox.

Then, why draft these players if you are not going to play them? Say what you want about Ron Scheuler, but he did make sure that his minor leaguers were given opportunities to establish themselves as MLB players, just like Larry Himes.

One of my favorite teams, the 1990 White Sox, was stacked with players that came out of the farm system as either Sox draftees or from other organizations and were brought to the bigs by the White Sox. I thought that was a neat thing, especially considering the fact that the team's minor league roster was loaded with AA and AAA veterans and big-league washouts just a few years prior. Only a ridiculous year by OAK prevented them from winning the AL West.

Additionally, most successful managers and teams bring seem to bring at least one or two rookies (or young players) a year in and give them an opportunity to establish themselves. Look it up yourself, the list is endless.

To directly answer your question, young players bring several benefits:

1. They are usually hungrier to show what they can do.
2. They cost less for the years they are in their prime, and they help balance out the payroll.
3. They will be in their pime performance-wise. How often do players hit their stride after free agency? Very, very rarely. You pay a player for what he accomplished with another team.

But why invest millions in a farm system if you get nothing out of it? For years I have seen many posters on this board laud this supposed deep minor league system of the White Sox, and I even got ripped to shreds questioning this right before the 2006 season. And now less than two years later, the farm system of 2008 resembles that of 1988.

The 2000 White Sox came out of nowhere to win the AL Central with 20 homegrown players contributng at some point. That's 20 players drafted and signed by the organization. It was a fun season for the most part, and watching that in-house lineup crush the ball for four months was really cool to me. Sure they went nowhere in the playoffs, but at least they got there.

With the resources this organization now has there is no reason that it's minor league system isn't producing one bonified major leaguer a year. If it doesn't, then they people in charge need to be replaced.

Tragg
12-18-2007, 09:26 AM
I'm not sure how much more Durham was going to bring back when he had publically stated he was going to test the free agent market, and the Sox were pretty much fed up with him at second base.
Didn't he net a draft pick though? Plus, what did beane ever do for the sox that would warrant that gift?

soxrme
12-18-2007, 09:26 AM
But why invest millions in a farm system if you get nothing out of it? For years I have seen many posters on this board laud this supposed deep minor league system of the White Sox, and I even got ripped to shreds questioning this right before the 2006 season. And now less than two years later, the farm system of 2008 resembles that of 1988.

The 2000 White Sox came out of nowhere to win the AL Central with 20 homegrown players contributng at some point. That's 20 players drafted and signed by the organization. It was a fun season for the most part, and watching that in-house lineup crush the ball for four months was really cool to me. Sure they went nowhere in the playoffs, but at least they got there.

With the resources this organization now has there is no reason that it's minor league system isn't producing one bonified major leaguer a year. If it doesn't, then they people in charge need to be replaced.

I agree with you totally. We have resources now, between the attendance the last two years and the millions from MLB that Bud Selig keeps bragging about. We also have the 75 million that we supposedly offered Hunter. Why we can't find money for one of the best 3rd basemen in baseball is baffling to me. I know that Crede's agent said he want to explore FA but if we came up with a great offer it might change his mind. We got rid of our homegrown talent mostly because of $$

Tragg
12-18-2007, 09:51 AM
Chris Young was about #3 in the Sox minor league outfield depth chart at the time he was traded. (Anderson and Sweeney were both ranked higher by the organization) Plus, you make it sound like they just "gave up" on Young. He was traded in a package for Vazquez in our push to win back to back World Series titles!

As far as playing time, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Prospect Sox players have gotten their chance to shine at the big league level and failed or had marginal success at best. Brian Anderson flashed a slick glove but never showed he could hit for almost 4 months at the big league level in '06. Jerry Owens and Richar both got extended looks at the big league level in '07 and didn't exactly tear it up. Josh Fields got extended playing time in '07 as well and he has more than likely earned a starting job next year. You know why? Because he is good!

The problem hasn't been a lack of playing time for our youngsters or "Ozzie and Kenny giving up on youth", the problem has been getting quality players out of our system. I like the Carlos Quentin trade because KW recognized the lack of young talent in our system and plucked a top prospect away from another organization to rebuild with. It's certainly debatable how extended these looks have been. Ozzie was grousing about Fields in his first week, but was forced to play him.
The further problem is that he's replacing these young players with poor veterans like Erstad, Mackowiak, and Cintron (Ozzie's back up designated hitter last year, among other things). The hapless Meyers and Bukvich were used out of the pen through the dusk of September. The patience for bad veterans with little chance of improvement seems endless; the patience for youth is 2 months.

Oh, and Anderson 2006 OPS was better than Erstad's 2007 OPS. Yet, to the bitter end, Ozzie made sure that Erstad had a prominent place in the lineup (1st, 2nd or 5th). Anderson was relegated to the bench (after, btw, a pretty good month; and his replacement was Rob M who simply couldn't play the position).

SBSoxFan
12-18-2007, 10:05 AM
:rolling:

Wow, this is all so hilarious. Look, the only reason the Sox have "an inscrutable GM and a wacky manager" is because the team lost 90 games last season. Did anyone call KW inscrutable when he traded Lee for Vizcaino and Pods? I doubt it. Ozzie might have been called wacky, but in a good way; there was a method to his madness. Have they both gone insane in a year? Probably not. The only people who have gone insane are sports writers and WSI'ers who seem to be convinced that KW, after weighing all his trade options, always takes the worst offer.

rdivaldi
12-18-2007, 10:53 AM
The 2000 White Sox came out of nowhere to win the AL Central with 20 homegrown players contributng at some point. That's 20 players drafted and signed by the organization.

:?:

I'd like to see who you consider to have "contributed". I don't see much more than 12 or 13 that had anything to do with that team.

Also, besides Chamberlain, who are these supposed arms that the Yankees have "cranked out"? I'm not blown away by Hughes or Kennedy although they appear to have a good future as middle or end of the rotation guys.

rdivaldi
12-18-2007, 10:55 AM
he's traded almost of the kids with any potential away, the most recent being the two who are now on the A's after being traded by the Dbacks.

:?:

Eh? Exaggerate much?

soxinem1
12-18-2007, 12:25 PM
:?:

I'd like to see who you consider to have "contributed". I don't see much more than 12 or 13 that had anything to do with that team.

Also, besides Chamberlain, who are these supposed arms that the Yankees have "cranked out"? I'm not blown away by Hughes or Kennedy although they appear to have a good future as middle or end of the rotation guys.

Wow, only 12 or 13 of the 2000 White Sox were meaningful contributors. I guess in your eyes that's worse than the 2-3 currently, right?:?:

Well, let's see: Pettite, Rivera, Proctor, Clippard, Kennedy, Hughes, Chaimberlain among pitchers who came to pro ball with NYY and played with them last year. Every team that talks to the Yanks about a trade wants at least one of the last four names.

And what do we have, Gio Gonzalez? He hasn't even pitched in MLB yet. Why wasn't he even given a couple appearances last August/September when the season was already over, so Buckvich and Myers can prove they suck?

The bigger question is why are KW and Guillen so afraid of their young players?

Then you have Posada, Cano, Jeter, and Cabrera among the NYY position players. That's nearly half the starting line up, all homegrown.

We currently have Fields as the only homegrown player on the current roster have had 200 AB's on the team last year. Pitiful.

And finally, most of the Yanks amateur picks were chosen AFTER the White Sox made their choices. So other than up their asses, where were the scouts, GM, and minor league personnel's heads the last decade?

Now let me ask you, what was the purpose of your response?

colles9
12-18-2007, 01:11 PM
Wow, only 12 or 13 of the 2000 White Sox were meaningful contributors. I guess in your eyes that's worse than the 2-3 currently, right?:?:

Well, let's see: Pettite, Rivera, Proctor, Clippard, Kennedy, Hughes, Chaimberlain among pitchers who came to pro ball with NYY and played with them last year. Every team that talks to the Yanks about a trade wants at least one of the last four names.

Now let me ask you, what was the purpose of your response?

I would assume the response is that you said 20 2000 White Sox players were home grown and had some contribution to the team that season however you go off to name the 2000 Yanks. I think the poster was saying there were only 12-13 2000 White Sox not 20 like you said earlier.

rdivaldi
12-18-2007, 01:31 PM
Now let me ask you, what was the purpose of your response?

To point out your obvious exaggerating and now to point out that you're being a jackass for no apparent reason.

It's irrelevant how many players you "develop from within", we won a World Series in 2005 with mostly players acquired through trades and free agency. Same goes for the Red Sox and Cards.

The Yankee farm system hasn't produced much of anything since the turn of the century, sure they had a couple of guys contribute this year, but that's an exception, not the norm. You also might want to re-think suggesting that other teams want guys like Clippard. Chamberlain is the guy everyone wants.

It should also be noted that you are wrong about the Yankees "drafting" guys like Rivera. He was not "drafted", he was signed as a free agent out of Panama.

Nellie_Fox
12-18-2007, 02:58 PM
To point out your obvious exaggerating and now to point out that you're being a jackass for no apparent reason.Tone down the personal comments.

Billy Ashley
12-18-2007, 04:05 PM
Other than a team like NYY or BOS that has deep pockets, most successful teams build from within.

But even those teams have developed more from within that we have recently, so using that low draft pick crap is not valid. Look at some of the arms the Yankees have cranked out in the past few years, picking lower and LESS than the White Sox.

Then, why draft these players if you are not going to play them? Say what you want about Ron Scheuler, but he did make sure that his minor leaguers were given opportunities to establish themselves as MLB players, just like Larry Himes.

One of my favorite teams, the 1990 White Sox, was stacked with players that came out of the farm system as either Sox draftees or from other organizations and were brought to the bigs by the White Sox. I thought that was a neat thing, especially considering the fact that the team's minor league roster was loaded with AA and AAA veterans and big-league washouts just a few years prior. Only a ridiculous year by OAK prevented them from winning the AL West.

Additionally, most successful managers and teams bring seem to bring at least one or two rookies (or young players) a year in and give them an opportunity to establish themselves. Look it up yourself, the list is endless.

To directly answer your question, young players bring several benefits:

1. They are usually hungrier to show what they can do.
2. They cost less for the years they are in their prime, and they help balance out the payroll.
3. They will be in their pime performance-wise. How often do players hit their stride after free agency? Very, very rarely. You pay a player for what he accomplished with another team.

But why invest millions in a farm system if you get nothing out of it? For years I have seen many posters on this board laud this supposed deep minor league system of the White Sox, and I even got ripped to shreds questioning this right before the 2006 season. And now less than two years later, the farm system of 2008 resembles that of 1988.

The 2000 White Sox came out of nowhere to win the AL Central with 20 homegrown players contributng at some point. That's 20 players drafted and signed by the organization. It was a fun season for the most part, and watching that in-house lineup crush the ball for four months was really cool to me. Sure they went nowhere in the playoffs, but at least they got there.

With the resources this organization now has there is no reason that it's minor league system isn't producing one bonified major leaguer a year. If it doesn't, then they people in charge need to be replaced.


Lots of stuff in this though I don’t think much of it as true:

“Other than a team like NYY or BOS that has deep pockets, most successful teams build from within.”

NY built a dynasty around a core of Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Rivera, Mendoza and so on. They also used players like Mike Lowell as trading chips to acquire other players to compliment their chore. They certainly used a great deal of money on the FA market for guys like Clemens, Cone and others but to say that they built only on the FA market would be an exaggeration. Additionally as we can see today with their reluctance to trade either Hughes or Chamberlain for Santana, they are concerned with developing and cultivating their own cost controlled assets.

Boston in recent years has developed Papelbon, Pedroia, Buchholz, Lester, Lowrie, Manny Del Carmen, Ellsbury and others who have either filled important roles over the past 4 seasons or appear as if they will impact in 2008. In the past The Red Sox developed Trot Nixon, Derek Lowe and Jason Veritek (though they were originally Seattle products that Boston acquired in the insanely stupid Slocumb trade) and others.

“But even those teams have developed more from within that we have recently, so using that low draft pick crap is not valid. Look at some of the arms the Yankees have cranked out in the past few years, picking lower and LESS than the White Sox.”

Boston and NY have done so because of a combination of good scouting, luck and deep pockets. I agree with you with you that draft position is not as important as a lot of fans think- baseball has much more varied and deep drafts than other sports like the NFL.

“ One of my favorite teams, the 1990 White Sox, was stacked with players that came out of the farm system as either Sox draftees or from other organizations and were brought to the bigs by the White Sox. I thought that was a neat thing, especially considering the fact that the team's minor league roster was loaded with AA and AAA veterans and big-league washouts just a few years prior. Only a ridiculous year by OAK prevented them from winning the AL West. “

That team had an 87-75 Pythag record, the fact that they finished with 94 wins was by a great deal of luck. The offense was below average posting a team OPS+ of 96 and that was in large part due to Carlton Fisk, Dan Pasqua Ivan Calderon dragging the young offence close to mediocrity. On the pitching side of the game, Hibbard had a fantastic year, but was burnt out and never that good again (was this because he was overworked in 90? I don’t know, but it’s possible). Jack McDowell and Alex Fernandez were average and burnt up cost controlled years for the two.

“Additionally, most successful managers and teams bring seem to bring at least one or two rookies (or young players) a year in and give them an opportunity to establish themselves. Look it up yourself, the list is endless.”

Any proof of this? Sure there may be numerous examples of such events but there are thousands of examples of young players establishing that they suck. I don’t think there is any compelling data to suggest that having “a couple youngsters” is a key part of success. I tend to agree that gradual implementation of younger players is helpful to a team, especially if they can fill in a limited role as a try out for something else, but to say definitively that a team needs youngsters seems to just be an opinion and nothing more.

“1. They are usually hungrier to show what they can do.”

How do we know that? There have been lazy rookies before. I’m by no means a sports psychologist but the entire “hungrier” thing sounds like the crap one hears on PTI.

“2. They cost less for the years they are in their prime, and they help balance out the payroll.”

Isn’t this more of an argument for being conservative about bring up youngsters. For instance, due to the Mets bringing up Jose Reyes as a 20 year old they will no be forced to resign him at 26, just as he enters his prime. So the Mets got 2 crappy years out of Reyes and 4 good years on the cheap when they could have had 6 good years for the same amount had they not promoted him until he was 22.

“3. They will be in their pime performance-wise. How often do players hit their stride after free agency? Very, very rarely. You pay a player for what he accomplished with another team.”

Define prime, most feel prime is 28-32. I don’t see any added value in blowing a cost controlled year at 21 only to lose the player as he enters his prime years.

Lip Man 1
12-18-2007, 05:55 PM
Billy:

Enjoyed reading your post but I'd like to make two comments regarding 1990.

1. Jack McDowell went 14-9 and turned out to be the leader of the young staff by the end of the season. To me that was not 'average'. Fernandez didn't even come up until August when he blasted right through the minor league system in only a few months. Hard to make any claim given the limited number of appearances he had.

2. I can't speak for anyone else but the Pythagorian Theorum is useless and meaningless to me. Games aren't won on projections, they are won on talent, heart, guts and some luck. That can't be quantified despite what the propellarheads at Baseball America and their ilk believe. If nothing else the Twins and White Sox shot to hell their goofy projections at least four time this decade alone.

Lip

soxinem1
12-18-2007, 06:29 PM
To point out your obvious exaggerating and now to point out that you're being a jackass for no apparent reason.

It's irrelevant how many players you "develop from within", we won a World Series in 2005 with mostly players acquired through trades and free agency. Same goes for the Red Sox and Cards.

The Yankee farm system hasn't produced much of anything since the turn of the century, sure they had a couple of guys contribute this year, but that's an exception, not the norm. You also might want to re-think suggesting that other teams want guys like Clippard. Chamberlain is the guy everyone wants.

It should also be noted that you are wrong about the Yankees "drafting" guys like Rivera. He was not "drafted", he was signed as a free agent out of Panama.

Amazing how some people need to draw straws and call names when they cannot defend their comments.

Whatever, Rivera was a PRODUCT of the NYY farm system. He was scouted, signed and got his start in pro ball by the Yanks.

And yes, there were 20 members of the 2000 White Sox that came from the farm system, meaning they were drafted or amateur FA signings (if that makes you happy).

Now I could care less how many players anyone produced from anyone's farm system. All I know is that the well is dry here, many 'prospects' were greatly over-rated, and both the GM and field manager have no faith in the young players of the organization. KW said he wanted to build the team for the long haul and contend every year. Yeah, right. No one even wants to trade with him for White Sox minor leaguers.

Lots of stuff in this though I don’t think much of it as true:


“But even those teams have developed more from within that we have recently, so using that low draft pick crap is not valid. Look at some of the arms the Yankees have cranked out in the past few years, picking lower and LESS than the White Sox.”

Boston and NY have done so because of a combination of good scouting, luck and deep pockets. I agree with you with you that draft position is not as important as a lot of fans think- baseball has much more varied and deep drafts than other sports like the NFL.

“ One of my favorite teams, the 1990 White Sox, was stacked with players that came out of the farm system as either Sox draftees or from other organizations and were brought to the bigs by the White Sox. I thought that was a neat thing, especially considering the fact that the team's minor league roster was loaded with AA and AAA veterans and big-league washouts just a few years prior. Only a ridiculous year by OAK prevented them from winning the AL West. “

That team had an 87-75 Pythag record, the fact that they finished with 94 wins was by a great deal of luck. The offense was below average posting a team OPS+ of 96 and that was in large part due to Carlton Fisk, Dan Pasqua Ivan Calderon dragging the young offence close to mediocrity. On the pitching side of the game, Hibbard had a fantastic year, but was burnt out and never that good again (was this because he was overworked in 90? I don’t know, but it’s possible). Jack McDowell and Alex Fernandez were average and burnt up cost controlled years for the two.

“Additionally, most successful managers and teams bring seem to bring at least one or two rookies (or young players) a year in and give them an opportunity to establish themselves. Look it up yourself, the list is endless.”

“1. They are usually hungrier to show what they can do.”

How do we know that? There have been lazy rookies before. I’m by no means a sports psychologist but the entire “hungrier” thing sounds like the crap one hears on PTI.

“2. They cost less for the years they are in their prime, and they help balance out the payroll.”

Isn’t this more of an argument for being conservative about bring up youngsters. For instance, due to the Mets bringing up Jose Reyes as a 20 year old they will no be forced to resign him at 26, just as he enters his prime. So the Mets got 2 crappy years out of Reyes and 4 good years on the cheap when they could have had 6 good years for the same amount had they not promoted him until he was 22.

“3. They will be in their pime performance-wise. How often do players hit their stride after free agency? Very, very rarely. You pay a player for what he accomplished with another team.”

Define prime, most feel prime is 28-32. I don’t see any added value in blowing a cost controlled year at 21 only to lose the player as he enters his prime years.

If you are going to make false statements regarding truth, please learn how to use the quote function.:tongue:

Additionally, everything mentioned in my response was a truthful statement. First, there were 20 home-grown members of the 2000 White Sox. Look it up.

Second, your definition of prime is off, as it can be anytime, it depends on the maturity of the player. Except for a few occasions, most players signed as FA's do not produce for the life of the contact they sign.

And you cite the stupid pythag theory, but the 2005 team came in at 91 wins, a bigger gap than either the 1990 or 2000 teams. What exactly was your reason for even bringing this up? That the 2005 team played way over it's head and was lucky?

Using 1990 and Y2K as an example had a reason. Both teams were young, went against the odds and predictions, and were excellent squads. The 1990 team had 13 homegrown players and many others acquired in trades that either had limited or no MLB experience when they were brought up by the White Sox.

Speaking of the 1990 team, Black Jack and Fernandez were burned up then? Please check their stats.

FarWestChicago
12-18-2007, 07:19 PM
Well, let's see: Pettite, Rivera, Proctor, Clippard, Kennedy, Hughes, Chaimberlain among pitchers who came to pro ball with NYY and played with them last year. Every team that talks to the Yanks about a trade wants at least one of the last four names.You might want to pick a team that isn't more than 50% 'roiders to bolster your argument. :wink:

Save McCuddy's
12-18-2007, 08:23 PM
;In articles predicting where free agents would sign, Rotoworld had Linebrink going to the Yankees for 4/24 and Yahoo had him going to the Astros for 3/21. Therefore, at 4/19, what's to complain about? How is this a bad deal?

This is the market now for a top notch setup man, period.

it's a bad deal because Linebrink is over 30 and showing signs of decline. He is also switching to the AL where the competition and hitters are much stronger. A 4 year commitment to a player who will be more overmatched than Cliff Politte ever was is a bad deal.

These roles are filled by hard throwing young arms breaking into the bigs by good teams. The best teams don't fill these roles with constrictive 4 year deals for aging journeymen.

Lip Man 1
12-18-2007, 10:03 PM
Save says:

"These roles are filled by hard throwing young arms breaking into the bigs by good teams."

You mean guys like Massett, Aardsma, Sisco and their ilk?

Throwing 100 miles per hour is meaningless if you can't throw strikes, walk hitters and then have to serve up a straight pitch. I would think the entire 2007 season would have made this clear.

It's not how hard you throw. Pitching is about throwing different speeds, moving the ball around, out-thinking hitters.

Lip

Billy Ashley
12-18-2007, 10:55 PM
Amazing how some people need to draw straws and call names when they cannot defend their comments.

Whatever, Rivera was a PRODUCT of the NYY farm system. He was scouted, signed and got his start in pro ball by the Yanks.

And yes, there were 20 members of the 2000 White Sox that came from the farm system, meaning they were drafted or amateur FA signings (if that makes you happy).

Now I could care less how many players anyone produced from anyone's farm system. All I know is that the well is dry here, many 'prospects' were greatly over-rated, and both the GM and field manager have no faith in the young players of the organization. KW said he wanted to build the team for the long haul and contend every year. Yeah, right. No one even wants to trade with him for White Sox minor leaguers.



If you are going to make false statements regarding truth, please learn how to use the quote function.:tongue:

Additionally, everything mentioned in my response was a truthful statement. First, there were 20 home-grown members of the 2000 White Sox. Look it up.

Second, your definition of prime is off, as it can be anytime, it depends on the maturity of the player. Except for a few occasions, most players signed as FA's do not produce for the life of the contact they sign.

And you cite the stupid pythag theory, but the 2005 team came in at 91 wins, a bigger gap than either the 1990 or 2000 teams. What exactly was your reason for even bringing this up? That the 2005 team played way over it's head and was lucky?

Using 1990 and Y2K as an example had a reason. Both teams were young, went against the odds and predictions, and were excellent squads. The 1990 team had 13 homegrown players and many others acquired in trades that either had limited or no MLB experience when they were brought up by the White Sox.

Speaking of the 1990 team, Black Jack and Fernandez were burned up then? Please check their stats.

Sorry if I came off as totally negative, not my intent. Anyway, I meant burnt as in wasted a cost controlled year where the two posted ERA+s of 100 and 101 respectively, awkward wording on my part; though Alex Fernandez would deal with a great deal of injuries at a fairly young age but that could have been the result of numerous of other stuff.

Pythag ain’t stupid, in fact over history most teams achieve close to their run differential, the fact that the 05 Sox over performed theirs probably had a ton to do with the absolutely filthy bullpen the white sox had that season. Not that any of that matters as anyone who knows anything about statistics knows that one case study isn’t nearly enough to determine whether or not a system is flawed or not.

There have been plenty of studies suggesting that a disproportionate amount of the time, players have their best seasons between the ages of 27 and 32, don’t have a link to one of them, but if you think about it, from an intuitive point of view it makes sense. Players that age are still young enough to be a tip top health and also have learned a great deal about the game. Here’s a list illustrating my point

Hank Aaron:
Fantastic out of the gate but his best most consistent awesome stretch was between the ages of 27-33

Alex Rodriguez:
Struggled his first year, awesome after that. Best seasons thus far at 29 and 31

Manny Ramirez:
Excellent hitter at a very young age, however his stats surged after 27 until this past season (35), though in his defense he was hurt over the entire season.

Jim Edmonds:
Good hitter, turned into a boarder line HoFer at the age of 28.

Pedro Martinez:
Very good pitcher until 25, gave the best 7 year stretch in history from 25-32

The list goes on and on. While this is nothing close to a comprehensive list, if you took all major league baseball players and produced a graph of at what age they performed at their highest level you would find the graph to be bell shaped with the majority of great seasons around 28 years of age. For every Eddie Mathews there are a lot more guys like Jim Edmonds or Roberto Clemente.

rdivaldi
12-19-2007, 12:35 AM
Amazing how some people need to draw straws and call names when they cannot defend their comments.

:?:

I have nothing that needs to be "defended", I stand by the facts in all my posts.

Is the White Sox farm system down in 2008? Yes, absolutely. Is it a barren wasteland devoid of talent? No, absolutely not.